Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
State vs Shaitan Singh And Ors on 16 September, 2025
Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
[2025:RJ-JD:31661-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 193/1993
State of Rajasthan
----Appellant
Versus
1. Shaitan Singh s/o Shri Khangar Singh
(Resident of Moru)
2. Guman Singh s/o Shri Bhawani Singh
(Resident of Moru)
3. Parbat Singh s/o Shri Bhopal Singh
(Resident of Zana)
4. Narpat Singh s/o Shri Khangar Singh
(Resident of Moru)
5. Ganga Singh s/o Shri Udai Singh
(Resident of Raythal)
----Respondent
Connected With
D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 80/1992
1. Shaitan Singh s/o Shri Khangar Singh
2. Guman Singh s/o Bhawani Singh
3. Narpat Singh s/o Khangar Singh
(All residents of Moru, District Jalore)
4. Ishwar Singh s/o Kesar Singh
(Resident of Jakjada, District Jalore)
5. Parbat Singh s/o Bhopal Singh
(Resident of Jana, District Jalore)
----Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ramesh Dewasi, P.P.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Harshvardhan Singh Rathore,
Amicus Curiae
(Uploaded on 18/09/2025 at 03:21:25 PM)
(Downloaded on 18/09/2025 at 09:40:35 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:31661-DB] (2 of 18) [CRLA-193/1993]
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL BENIWAL Judgment Reserved on 17/07/2025 Pronounced on 16/09/2025 Per Dr. Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J:
1. The instant cross-appeals arise out of the common judgment dated 06.03.1992 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jalore, in Sessions Case Nos. 9/1990, 10/1990, and 30/1990, tried and decided together.
1.1. D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 193/1993 has been preferred by the State under Section 378(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, assailing the acquittal of the accused persons and seeking their conviction and sentence under the relevant provisions of the Indian Penal Code. Specifically, the State prays for conviction of:
(i) Shaitan Singh, Guman Singh, Ishwar Singh, Parbat Singh, Narpat Singh, and Vikram Singh under Section 302/149 IPC;
(ii) Ganga Singh and Jeevan Singh under Sections 302/149, 447, and 148 IPC; and
(iii) Shambhu Singh, Habat Singh, Hamir Singh, and Bhanwar Singh under Section 302/149 IPC.
1.2. The connected cross-appeal, being D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 80/1992, has been preferred by the aforesaid accused persons (who figure as respondents in D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 193/1993), challenging their conviction under Section 304 Part II (Uploaded on 18/09/2025 at 03:21:25 PM) (Downloaded on 18/09/2025 at 09:40:35 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:31661-DB] (3 of 18) [CRLA-193/1993] read with Sections 149, 148, and 447 IPC, as recorded in the impugned judgment.
1.3. Vide the impugned judgment, the learned Trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused persons, namely, Shaitan Singh, Guman Singh, Parbat Singh, Narpat Singh, and Ishwar Singh as follows:
Convicted under Sentence Awarded Default Sentence Section Section 304 Part II 5 years Rigorous 3 months Simple read with Section 149 Imprisonment and Imprisonment IPC Rs .1500/- fine Sec. 148 IPC 6 months Rigorous 15 days Simple Imprisonment and Rs. Imprisonment 300/- fine Sec. 447 IPC 1 months Rigorous 7 days Simple Imprisonment and Rs. Imprisonment 200/- fine Remaining accused persons were acquitted of the charges leveled against them.
1.4. At the outset, it is pertinent to note that vide order dated 28.05.1993, leave to appeal was granted only against accused Shaitan Singh, Guman Singh, Parbat Singh, Narpat Singh, and Ishwar Singh. It is further noticed that in the cause title of D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 193/1993, the name of accused Ganga Singh s/o Shri Udai Singh was erroneously shown in place of accused Ishwar Singh s/o Shri Kisar Singh. By order dated 04.07.2025, this Court directed the learned Public Prosecutor to furnish a fresh alive status report of all accused and amend the cause title accordingly, which was not furnished. However, in the interest of justice, this Court deems it appropriate to delete the name of (Uploaded on 18/09/2025 at 03:21:25 PM) (Downloaded on 18/09/2025 at 09:40:35 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:31661-DB] (4 of 18) [CRLA-193/1993] Ganga Singh s/o Shri Udai Singh from the array of parties and substitute the name of Ishwar Singh s/o Shri Kisar Singh, against whom leave to appeal had in fact been granted. 1.5. It is also necessary to record that accused Ishwar Singh expired on 01.09.2009 during the pendency of the proceedings, and the appeal preferred by him stood abated vide order dated 26.02.2010. It has further been brought to the notice of this Court by the learned Public Prosecutor, on the basis of a report dated 05.07.2025 submitted by the Station House Officer, Police Station Aahor, District Jalore, that accused Shaitan Singh has also expired. The said report is taken on record. Consequently, the present adjudication is confined to the surviving accused, namely, Narpat Singh, Guman Singh, and Parbat Singh. 1.6. Since both appeals emanate from the same judgment, they are being considered and disposed of together by this common judgment.
2. The matter pertains to an incident which had occurred in the year 1989 and the present appeal has been pending since the year 1992 and 1993, respectively.
3. Brief facts of the case are that on 18.07.1989, Shri Bhanwar Singh lodged a report (Ex.P.1) before the S.H.O., Police Station, Ahore, stating that he, along with one Magh Singh, was sitting in his field when the accused persons, Shaitan Singh, Narpat Singh, Guman Singh, Vikram Singh, Ishwar Singh, Ran Singh, and Parbat Singh, attacked Magh Singh with a common intention to cause his death. It was alleged that Narpat Singh was armed with a kulhadi, (Uploaded on 18/09/2025 at 03:21:25 PM) (Downloaded on 18/09/2025 at 09:40:36 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:31661-DB] (5 of 18) [CRLA-193/1993] Shaitan Singh with a dhariya, and the remaining accused with lathis, with which they inflicted serious injuries upon Magh Singh.
Bhanwar Singh raised an alarm and requested the accused to desist, upon which they fled the scene in a tractor driven by Guman Singh, leaving Magh Singh seriously injured. Witnesses Bagh Singh and Nen Singh arrived subsequently and corroborated the incident. Magh Singh was taken for medical treatment, but succumbed to his injuries. Consequently, the initial investigation under Sections 147, 148, 149, 447, 325, 307, and 323 IPC was converted into one under Section 302 IPC and the investigation began accordingly.
3.1. Upon completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the accused persons, namely, Guman Singh, Shaitan Singh, Jeevan Singh, Ishwar Singh, Parbat Singh, Narpat Singh, Ganga Singh and Vikram Singh under Sections 148, 302/149 and 447 IPC and against accused persons, namely Shambhu Singh, Habat Singh, Hamir Singh and Bhanwar Singh under Section 302/149 IPC. The charges were read over and explained to the accused persons who denied the same and claimed trial, whereafter the trial commenced accordingly. 3.2. During the course of trial, the evidence of 19 prosecution witnesses were recorded and 39 documents were exhibited on behalf of the prosecution; in defence, no witness was produced however, 05 documents were exhibited; subsequently, the accused persons were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in which they (Uploaded on 18/09/2025 at 03:21:25 PM) (Downloaded on 18/09/2025 at 09:40:36 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:31661-DB] (6 of 18) [CRLA-193/1993] pleaded innocence and their false implication in the criminal case in question.
3.3. Thereafter, upon hearing the contentions of both the parties as well as considering the material and evidence placed on record, the learned Trial Court, convicted and sentenced the accused persons, as above, vide the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 06.03.1992, against which the present appeals have been preferred.
4. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State contended that the impugned judgment to the extent of acquittal is unsustainable in law and on facts, as the prosecution had proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts. It was urged that the trial court failed to properly appreciate the prosecution evidence, and hence the judgment deserves to be set aside. 4.1.1 . It was submitted that the prosecution had examined four eyewitnesses, namely, Bhanwar Singh (PW.1), Nain Singh (PW.3), Bagh Singh (PW.8), and Smt. Sohan Kanwar (PW.9), wife of the deceased. However, the trial court failed to properly appreciate their testimonies.
4.1.2. In particular, PW.1 Bhanwar Singh, the informant and eyewitness, had categorically deposed regarding the assault on the deceased, and his version stood corroborated by other eyewitnesses and remained consistent in cross-examination, yet the trial court erroneously declared him hostile, whereas his testimony ought to have been relied upon.
(Uploaded on 18/09/2025 at 03:21:25 PM) (Downloaded on 18/09/2025 at 09:40:36 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:31661-DB] (7 of 18) [CRLA-193/1993] 4.1.3. Likewise, the testimony of PW.3 Nen Singh with respect to the dying declaration and documents Ex.P.7 and Ex.P.8 was disbelieved on account of certain omissions and contradictions, which, according to the prosecution, were minor in nature and liable to be ignored.
4.2. Learned Public Prosecutor further submitted that the deceased had made an oral dying declaration naming the assailants in the presence of PW.2 Ram Singh and PW.3 Nain Singh, which was also reflected in Ex.P.7 and Ex.P.8. Although PW.2 Ram Singh was declared hostile and the trial court disbelieved PW.3 Nain Singh's testimony on account of certain omissions and contradictions, it was urged that such minor discrepancies ought not to have been given undue weight. It was contended that the substance of their statements stood corroborated by other eyewitnesses, thereby lending credibility to the dying declaration, which deserved acceptance. 4.3. Learned Public Prosecutor further submitted that accused persons were armed with deadly weapons, namely a kulhadi, a dhariya, and lathis, which were recovered at their instance during investigation, and with which they inflicted multiple grievous injuries upon the deceased. The medical evidence, including the post-mortem report, fully corroborates the prosecution case, as the injuries sustained were consistent with the weapons alleged to have been used. It was urged that despite the clear evidence of several serious and fatal injuries, the trial court erred in holding that the injuries were not sufficient in the ordinary course of (Uploaded on 18/09/2025 at 03:21:25 PM) (Downloaded on 18/09/2025 at 09:40:36 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:31661-DB] (8 of 18) [CRLA-193/1993] nature to cause death and thereby in discarding the charge under Section 302 IPC. According to the prosecution, the nature, number, and seat of injuries clearly establish the intention to cause death, and thus the offence squarely falls under Section 302 IPC.
4.4. Learned Public Prosecutor further submitted that PW.9 Smt. Sohan Kanwar, wife of the deceased, categorically deposed that she had overheard the accused conspiring to kill her husband and, on proceeding to the field to warn him, actually witnessed the assault. The trial court, however, discarded substantial portions of her testimony on account of minor contradictions which are natural in the course of a trial. It was urged that these portions deserved consideration, as they directly connect the accused persons with the murder of Magh Singh. It was further contended that the accused had constituted an unlawful assembly with the common object of causing the death of the deceased, and the fatal injuries were the outcome of their collective action, thereby attracting the provisions of Sections 147, 148, 149, and 302 IPC. 4.5. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the plea of false implication is untenable, as there was no reason for the complainant to falsely implicate the accused persons while sparing the real culprits. Minor discrepancies highlighted by the defence are natural in oral testimony and do not affect the core of the prosecution case.
4.5.1. Learned Public Prosecutor finally submitted that the prosecution had proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts (Uploaded on 18/09/2025 at 03:21:25 PM) (Downloaded on 18/09/2025 at 09:40:36 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:31661-DB] (9 of 18) [CRLA-193/1993] under Section 302 IPC, yet the Trial Court erred in not convicting the accused for the said offence and instead recorded a lesser conviction.
5. Mr. Harshvardhan Singh Rathore, learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the accused herein, while assailing the impugned judgment, submitted that the conviction as recorded by the learned Trial Court in the impugned judgment is unsustainable in the eyes of law, as the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts. It was urged that the entire case rests upon the testimony of interested and partisan witnesses who were either related to the deceased or inimically disposed towards the accused. The non-examination of independent witnesses, despite their availability, raises serious doubts about the fairness and credibility of the prosecution story. 5.1. At the outset, it was submitted that the prosecution evidence rests largely upon interested and partisan witnesses related to the deceased, while no independent witness from the locality was examined. This omission seriously undermines the credibility of the prosecution story.
5.2. With respect to PW.1 Bhanwar Singh, it was submitted that the learned Trial Court rightly found him unreliable and declared him hostile. His testimony contains material contradictions between the FIR, his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., and deposition at trial. In view of such inconsistencies, his evidence cannot form the basis of conviction. Once discredited, his testimony cannot be relied upon to sustain impugned conviction.
(Uploaded on 18/09/2025 at 03:21:25 PM) (Downloaded on 18/09/2025 at 09:40:36 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:31661-DB] (10 of 18) [CRLA-193/1993] 5.3. It was further argued that PW.3 Nain Singh's evidence regarding the alleged dying declaration and the contemporaneous documents Ex.P.7 and Ex.P.8 is wholly unreliable. His testimony suffered from omissions and contradictions noted by the trial court, and the prosecution has failed to explain these discrepancies. The alleged documents are doubtful in origin and cannot be treated as reliable proof of any dying declaration. 5.4. As regards PW.2 Ram Singh, it was pointed out that he was declared hostile by the prosecution itself, and his testimony cannot now be selectively relied upon.
5.5. With respect to PW.9 Smt. Sohan Kanwar, wife of the deceased, it was urged that her testimony is full of material contradictions and improvements. Her claim of overhearing a conspiracy is unnatural and improbable, and the story that she rushed to the field only to witness the assault is a later development designed to falsely implicate the accused. The trial court rightly discarded portion of her statement, as they were inconsistent and unreliable. The conduct of PW.9 after over hearing the accused persons conspiring to kill her husband also casts a shadow of doubt as to the credibility of PW.9 as an eyewitness.
5.5.1. It was also submitted by the learned counsel that the statements of PW.9 were taken twice before the police, both having contradictions amongst themselves. It is also highlighted that the said statements, i.e., Ex.D. 4 and Ex.D.5, were taken on (Uploaded on 18/09/2025 at 03:21:25 PM) (Downloaded on 18/09/2025 at 09:40:36 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:31661-DB] (11 of 18) [CRLA-193/1993] 23.07.1989 and 10.09.1989. the two month gap shows the developments and influence in her testimonies. 5.6. It was further submitted that the alleged recoveries of weapons at the instance of the accused persons are of no evidentiary value, as they were not seized contemporaneously, the chain of custody was not established, and no forensic proof conclusively linked them to the crime. PW.15 Lalit Kumar admitted that the five recovered articles on 21.07.1989 were sent to the Forensic Laboratory only on 14.09.1989, and the prosecution has failed to explain this inordinate delay. In such circumstances, the benefit of doubt must go to the accused.
5.7. As regards the medical evidence, it was argued that the trial court correctly held that the injuries were not sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death and that out of all the injuries caused, only Injury No. 27 which caused Internal injury no. 3 was grave.
5.7.1. It was also submitted that Dr. Pramod PW.7 has clearly deposed in his cross examination that puncture of the lung (right) can also be caused when a body is mishandled or when external pressure is applied on it. This could have been possible when PW.9 fell on her husband or when the deceased was being taken to the hospital in the Jeep due to the broken road. The testimony of the doctor raises a doubt to the possibility of how the lung got punctured. In the such a circumstance, the prosecution has failed to establish that the accused persons with the commission of murder.
(Uploaded on 18/09/2025 at 03:21:25 PM) (Downloaded on 18/09/2025 at 09:40:36 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:31661-DB] (12 of 18) [CRLA-193/1993] 5.8. The defence also submitted that the application of Section 149 IPC was erroneous. The evidence, at best, attributes individual overt acts to some of the accused, but the prosecution has not proved any premeditated common object to kill Magh Singh. Constructive liability under Section 149 IPC cannot be fastened in the absence of cogent proof of common object. 5.9. It was also submitted that the acquittal of 5 accused in the same case speaks for the fact that the prosecution is trying to frame as many accused persons as possible for the said crime. 5.10. It was lastly submitted that the plea of false implication is a valid defence in this case. Given the strained relations between the parties and the absence of independent corroboration, the possibility of exaggeration and false implication cannot be ruled out. The prosecution version suffers from material infirmities, contradictions, and lapses in investigation, all of which entitle the accused to the benefit of doubt.
5.11. On the above premise, it was prayed that the conviction of the accused herein under Sections 302/149 IPC is wholly unsustainable and liable to be quashed and set aside.
6. Heard learned counsel for both the parties as well as perused the record placed before us.
7. This Court observes that the instant adjudication arises out of the common judgment dated 06.03.1992 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jalore, in Sessions Case Nos. 9/1990, 10/1990, and 30/1990, whereby five accused were convicted under Sections 304 Part II/149, 148, and 447 IPC and others acquitted. During (Uploaded on 18/09/2025 at 03:21:25 PM) (Downloaded on 18/09/2025 at 09:40:36 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:31661-DB] (13 of 18) [CRLA-193/1993] the pendency of the proceedings, accused Shaitan Singh and Ishwar Singh expired and their appeals abated. Accordingly, the present adjudication is confined to the surviving accused -- Guman Singh, Parbat Singh, and Narpat Singh.
8. This Court further observes that the prosecution rests its case on PW.1 Bhanwar Singh, PW.3 Nain Singh, PW.8 Bagh Singh, and PW.9 Smt. Sohan Kanwar, all closely related to the deceased. While such testimony cannot be rejected merely for relationship, the absence of neutral witnesses, reduces the impartial strength of the case and calls for careful scrutiny.
9. This Court also observes that PW.1, the informant and purported eyewitness, was rightly declared hostile. His FIR (Ex.P.1), his Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement, and his deposition before the Court contain material contradictions. Such inconsistencies go to the root of the prosecution case and render his testimony unreliable as a foundation for conviction.
10. This Court also observes that the alleged dying declaration, reflected in Ex.P.7 and Ex.P.8 and spoken to by PW.3, suffers from serious infirmities. The documents' origin is doubtful; PW.2, another supposed witness, turned hostile; and PW.3's version is inconsistent. A dying declaration, though admissible under Section 32 of the Evidence Act, must be voluntary, truthful, and free from tutoring before it can form the sole basis of conviction (Khushal Rao v. State of Bombay, Criminal Appeal No. 184 of 1956, decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 25.09.1957). The present material falls short of these requirements.
(Uploaded on 18/09/2025 at 03:21:25 PM) (Downloaded on 18/09/2025 at 09:40:36 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:31661-DB] (14 of 18) [CRLA-193/1993]
11. This Court further observes that PW.9 Smt. Sohan Kanwar's testimony is marred by material improvements and contradictions. Her claim of overhearing a conspiracy and subsequently witnessing the assault is inherently improbable. Furthermore, her two police statements (Ex.D.4 and Ex.D.5), recorded nearly two months apart, contain contradictory versions. Such divergences undermine her credibility as an eyewitness.
12. This Court also observes that the alleged recoveries of weapons at the instance of the accused are of negligible evidentiary worth. Though seizure was effected on 21.07.1989, the articles were forwarded to the Forensic Laboratory only on 14.09.1989, thereby breaking the chain of custody. No conclusive forensic link was established between the weapons and the injuries and therefore, the probative value of such recoveries is thus destroyed.
13. This Court further observes that the medical evidence, though recording multiple injuries, discloses only Injury No. 27 (puncture of lung) as serious. Importantly, PW.7 Dr. Pramod conceded that such an injury could result from mishandling during transport. For conviction under Section 302 IPC, the prosecution must prove that the injury was "sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death". That test is not satisfied here, thereby eroding the prosecution case.
14. This Court also observes that there was no cogent proof of a premeditated common object so as to attract constructive liability under Section 149 IPC. At best, individual overt acts may be (Uploaded on 18/09/2025 at 03:21:25 PM) (Downloaded on 18/09/2025 at 09:40:36 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:31661-DB] (15 of 18) [CRLA-193/1993] attributed, but there is no credible evidence of a shared design to kill. Section 149 IPC cannot be invoked mechanically; the prosecution must establish that the accused shared a common object. That burden has not been discharged.
15. This Court also observes that the non-examination of independent witnesses, though available, is a serious lacuna. This Court observes that the failure to produce such witnesses casts a cloud on the prosecution case. The omission strengthens the defence contention of partisan and selective prosecution.
16. This Court further observes that the acquittal of several co- accused by the trial court, coupled with the admitted strained relations between the parties, lends weight to the plea of false implication. In cases of group assault, inconsistency in conviction and acquittal of similarly placed accused demands close scrutiny. The possibility of exaggerated or malicious implication here cannot be ruled out.
17. This Court also observes that the conviction of the accused herein under Section 304 Part II IPC and allied offences (148, 447 IPC) also cannot be sustained. Section 304 Part II requires proof that the accused acted with knowledge that death was likely to ensue. In the present case, the unreliable ocular testimony, doubtful dying declaration, inconclusive medical opinion, and infirm weapon recoveries negate such knowledge. Even if some injuries are attributable to the accused, they do not establish intention or knowledge requisite for Section 304 Part II. Likewise, once the substratum of the prosecution case is disbelieved, the (Uploaded on 18/09/2025 at 03:21:25 PM) (Downloaded on 18/09/2025 at 09:40:36 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:31661-DB] (16 of 18) [CRLA-193/1993] incidental charges of unlawful assembly under Section 148 IPC and criminal trespass under Section 447 IPC cannot independently stand.
18. This Court further observes that in light of the cumulative decifiencies, partisan and inconsistent witnesses, unreliable dying declaration, inconclusive medical and forensic evidence, absence of independent corroboration, and failure to prove any common object, the prosecution has failed to establish guilt even under a lesser charge. It is trite that when two views are reasonably possible, the one favourable to the accused must be adopted. The accused are thus entitled to the benefit of doubt and consequent acquittal.
19. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court observes that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the surviving accused herein beyond all reasonable doubts. The ocular testimony is found to be unreliable and inconsistent, the alleged dying declaration is untrustworthy, the recoveries are inconclusive, the medical evidence does not support homicidal intent, and the ingredients of common object under Section 149 IPC are wholly absent. The charges under Section 304 Part II IPC, as well as under Sections 148 and 447 IPC, is not made out.
20. This Court further observes that the settled principle of criminal jurisprudence is that suspicion, however strong, cannot substitute proof. When two views are possible, the view favourable to the accused must be adopted.
(Uploaded on 18/09/2025 at 03:21:25 PM) (Downloaded on 18/09/2025 at 09:40:36 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:31661-DB] (17 of 18) [CRLA-193/1993]
21. Accordingly, this Court holds that the appeal preferred by the accused persons (D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 80/1992) deserves to be allowed and is hereby allowed. The conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Sessions Judge, Jalore, against the surviving accused-Guman Singh, Parbat Singh, and Narpat Singh under Sections 304 Part II/149, 148, and 447 IPC, vide the impugned judgment dated 06.03.1992, are quashed and set aside, and the surviving accused herein are acquitted of all the charges against them.
21.1. This Court further holds that the State's appeal (D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 193/1993) against acquittal and for enhancement of conviction under Section 302 IPC is devoid of merit and is the same is dismissed.
22. Keeping in view the provisions of Section 437-A Cr.P.C. / Section 481 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, each of the surviving accused herein are directed to furnish a personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- and a surety bond of like amount each before the learned Trial Court, which shall remain effective for a period of six months. The bond shall ensure that in the event of filing of a Special Leave Petition against this judgment or for grant of leave, the surviving accused herein shall appear before the Hon'ble Supreme Court upon receipt of notice.
23. All pending applications stand disposed of. The record of the learned Trial Court be returned forthwith.
(Uploaded on 18/09/2025 at 03:21:25 PM) (Downloaded on 18/09/2025 at 09:40:36 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:31661-DB] (18 of 18) [CRLA-193/1993]
24. This Court is thankful to Mr. Harshvardhan Singh Rathore, who has rendered his assistance as Amicus Curiae on behalf of the accused persons in the present adjudication. (SUNIL BENIWAL),J (DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J Skant/-
(Uploaded on 18/09/2025 at 03:21:25 PM) (Downloaded on 18/09/2025 at 09:40:36 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)